Plan Commission

APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Public Hearing Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on December 8th, 2016 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairperson Bob Benton Larry Berg Elaine Jacoby Stuart Shayman Absent were: Al Bromberg Jim Moyer Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item No public comment on a non-agenda item (1) Public Hearing on the Request for Approval of an Amendment to a Commercial Planned Unit Development to Redevelop the 711 Deerfield Road Building with a New Multi-Tenant Building (Deerfield Square), CRM Properties, LTD. Chris Siavelis, Senior Vice President, CRM Properties Group, LTD, introduced his redevelopment team: Chuck Malk, Founder & President, CRM Properties Group, LTD; Demetrios Stravrianos, Principal Architect, RTKL; Bill Ferguson, Landscape Architect, ASLA, Daniel Weinbach & Partners, LTD; Luay Aboona, Traffic Engineer, KLOA, INC. Mr. Siavelis commented that the Biaggi’s restaurant is permanently closed as a result of their unilateral right to terminate the lease. CRM Properties is disappointed in Biaggi’s failure, as well as the failure of numerous sit-down, fine dining restaurants over the years; unfortunately, the market did not sustain those operations. Mr. Siavelis commented that with the Village’s support, CRM Properties has an exciting opportunity to redevelop the 711 Deerfield Road Building, and pave the way for a new multi-tenant, retail oriented building attracting market viable tenants. The revised building elevations incorporate more of the existing Deerfield Square architectural elements, including: the gables, the slate roofs and the copings, per the Plan Commissions previous suggestions. The proposed building is approximately 10,000 square feet and the petitioners envisions four separate facades with four separate tenants although that’s subject to change due to market demand. The building includes two glass enclosed Public Hearing Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 2 end caps with retractable glass doors for dining areas. The design will increase transparency to the rest of the center, and will be an improved addition to the downtown Deerfield streetscape. With the use of premium materials such as brick, metal panels, glazed block, glass and outdoor dining, the new building will further activate downtown Deerfield. Mr. Siavelis presented a material board of all the proposed materials to be used on the new multi-tenant building. He showed a rendering of the south elevation identifying the proposed materials. Commissioner Shayman asked for confirmation that the center storefront was blue and the end structures are black. Mr. Siavelis confirmed that the center storefront is blue, and the rest of the storefront glazing, including the glass storefront closures would be black. The petitioners are proposing new landscaping around the building, as well as slight changes to the parking area. The spaces immediately to the west of the current 711 Deerfield Road Building as well as a few spaces along Deerfield Road will be eliminated in order to make way for the loading dock and trash enclosure access. Eleven parking spaces will be added from a land banked area west of the building. Commissioner Berg asked how many spaces are being eliminated west of the building. Mr. Siavelis responded six parking spaces are being eliminated to the west. The traffic and parking study determined that the current intersections can handle any additional capacity that these new tenants may generate, and the overall parking demand from a zoning perspective is lower for the new multi-tenant building than for the existing full service sit-down restaurant. There are no anticipated parking issues. The rooftop equipment will be fully screened by the parapet walls. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if there would be additional screening for the rooftop units, or if the parapet walls would solely be screening the rooftop units from sight lines. Mr. Siavelis clarified that only the parapet walls would be screening the rooftop units; just like the other buildings in Deerfield Square. The petitioners are requesting two sign variations for the new sign criteria specifically for this building: 1.) signage be mounted on metal awnings that are no more than thirty-six inches out from the façade of the building, and no more than six inches from the adjacent façade, since the signage cannot be mounted on the glass line itself, and 2.) to allow rooftop mounted signage on the east and west glass enclosures. Mr. Siavelis explained that the current zoning only allows end cap tenants to have one sign on each façade, and in this particular case the wall signage would need to be setback fifteen feet, which limits visibility from a traffic perspective. He noted that granting their request to have rooftop mounted sign on the glass enclosures (only) would allow the signage to be more visible from the roadway. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if the signage could be displayed lower on the glass. Mr. Siavelis explained that signage could not be mounted on the glass itself, and in order to mount the signage on the building, it would have to be converted to panels which would change the whole intent to have natural light coming into those dining area. Commissioner Shayman suggested that an alternative could be to build up a parapet wall an extra two to three feet all the way around the glass enclosures to display the wall signage. Mr. Siavelis responded that Public Hearing Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 3 adding a parapet wall would then block site lines to the rest of the center as well as build up more mass on the building itself. Mr. Siavelis explained that the internet has created a very competitive online retail market as well as changed consumers buying behavior. He commented that in order to remain competitive, the shopping center must change to meet consumers’ demands. The proposed multi-tenant building is a part of that change, and the petitioners are confident that this building will be a very valuable addition to Deerfield Square, enhance the streetscape, and the Deerfield’s downtown experience. Commissioner Benton voiced his concern that the drawings only indicated one accessible parking space in the immediate parking lot, and asked if there were going to be any entrances on the south façade. Mr. Siavelis responded that the customer entrances are all on the south façade, and the north façade is primarily for service. Mr. Siavelis noted that the law requires one accessible parking space per building, and that parking space has to be the nearest to the building. The accessible parking space can be moved to go in front of one of the other store fronts; however, the current chosen location does fulfill the ADA Illinois State Law as it is nearest to the building. Commissioner Benton commented that moving the accessible space in front of one of the storefronts would be helpful, since the proposed location is off to the west of the entrances. Mr. Siavelis pointed out that there are two existing accessible parking spaces in front of the new building which will remain. Chairperson Oppenheim pointed out that there aren’t any crosswalks marked from the parking lot to the entrances of the building, and asked Mr. Aboona if he would recommend having a crosswalk for safety purposes. Chairperson Oppenheim also pointed out that one of the designated employee parking areas is currently on the west end of the parking lot, which is nearest to the proposed multi-tenant building. She asked the petitioner it was still appropriate to have employee parking in that area. Mr. Siavelis clarified that the employee parking is actually located towards the center of the parking area, so that customers have access to priority parking. Mr. Siavelis confirmed that CRM Properties would be willing to incorporate a crosswalk into their plans. Chairperson Oppenheim asked Mr. Aboona if he felt incorporating a crosswalk was necessary, since there would be increased pedestrian traffic crossing the parking lot. Mr. Siavelis agreed that incorporating a crosswalk would be beneficial to the safety of their customers. Mr. Aboona agreed, and explained that incorporating a landing area from one side to the other would be the most efficient way to have pedestrians safely cross the parking lot. Chairperson Oppenheim asked for confirmation that the parking lot to the west would not be designated employee parking, since their materials packet has conflicting information. Mr. Siavelis commented that CRM Properties will relocate the designated employee parking area as necessary, in order to ensure that customers have priority parking closest to the store. Chairperson Oppenheim advised the petitioners to be prepared to identify their new designated employee parking area to the Board of Trustees. Public Hearing Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 4 Chairperson Oppenheim asked for confirmation that the trash area will be to the west of the building on the north side along Deerfield Road, and enclosed by a brick wall. Mr. Siavelis confirmed, and commented that the red brick wall will match the other buildings in Deerfield Square. Chairperson Oppenheim pointed out that the trash area is not included in any of the renderings, and advised the petitioners to add the trash enclosure (to scale) to their drawings for the Board since it’s a structural component, and will add to the visual massing of the building. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the landscape architect to identify the large circular plant materials indicated along Deerfield Road on the north side. Bill Ferguson identified the plants as existing burning bush. Chairperson Oppenheim asked Mr. Ferguson to label the existing plants on the landscape plan. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners if there will be any efforts towards sustainability in constructing the new multi-tenant building, such as LEED certification. Mr. Siavelis commented that the windows would consist of Low-E retail cleared glazing that’s required by code, but they will not be working toward LEED certification on this project. Chairperson Oppenheim informed the petitioners that Menchie’s had to invest in special blinds to protect their product and customers from the heat produced by the natural sunlight coming through their windows on their southern exposure. Commissioner Jacoby commented that this was a big issue for Menchie’s as they had to unexpectedly invest in expensive custom window treatments, and the window treatments give the impression that they are closed during the day. Mr. Siavelis thanked the Commissioners for the information. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that it was an important issue to look into because the sun coming through the windows can make it uncomfortably hot for customers and restrict where customers are willing to be seated. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners to discuss their construction plans. Mr. Siavelis informed the Commissioners that CRM Properties have met with both the Building Department and Fire Department, and neither have expressed any serious concerns on the redevelopment of the building. The logistics of their construction plan is very simple: they will fence off their construction site and will have one access point for the construction crew. They will also be monitor dust control during demolition. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that her main concern was access issues, and advised that (if possible) it was important not to block the sidewalk along Deerfield Road. Mr. Siavelis explained to the Commissioners that due to digging associated with the foundation work, there may be temporary sidewalk closures. He said this would all be done in accordance with the Building Department. Chairperson Oppenheim advised the petitioners that they would have to be sensitive about the sidewalk closure, as well as coordinating construction truck traffic so customers can easily and safely access Deerfield Square. Mr. Siavelis explained that one access point would be designated for construction traffic as well as designate a staging area for materials within the construction zone to ensure efficiency and safety. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners to address the snow removal within Deerfield Square, as many residents have complained to the Village about the lack of parking spaces and the inability to navigate through the parking lot due to the large Public Hearing Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 5 masses of snow piled up in the winter. Mr. Siavelis ensured the Commissioners that CRM Properties has always worked with their snow removal crew to make sure that snow piles aren’t impeding site lines for safety purposes. CRM Properties have always removed snow from the property to open up parking spaces in the past. It is a great expense to have the snow hauled away and not economically viable to have the snow removed after every big snow fall. Mr. Siavelis assured the Commissioners that CRM Properties would continue to monitor the situation and adjust snow piles as necessary to maintain safety as well as removing the snow when it gets to a certain point. Chairperson Oppenheim asked how CRM Properties determined when it was necessary to remove snow from the property. Mr. Siavelis responded that with the unpredictability of the weather and the climate rapidly changing it is difficult to determine an exact calculation of how much snow warrants having it removed from the property. Mr. Siavelis expressed his confidence that CRM Properties track record over the last fifteen years proves that they manage the center in a Class A format, and there have not been any accidents due to the snow. Chairperson Oppenheim advised the petitioners that rooftop signage is not allowed and does not currently exist anywhere in the Village. Mr. Siavelis acknowledged that the Appearance Review Commission unanimously rejected their request; however, the reality is that it’s a changing world and every business wants branding. Tenants have specific demands about how their signage is to be displayed, and are not willing to compromise. Mr. Siavelis explained that CRM Properties is trying to build that flexibility with their request. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if their fear was that if the signage had to be displayed on the wall rather than on the rooftop that it wouldn’t be visible enough from the street. Mr. Siavelis explained that the signage would be set back fifteen feet on a sixteen foot wall which would reduce site lines. Commissioner Berg asked if the signage would be conforming if it was placed on the wall instead of the rooftop. Mr. Ryckaert confirmed one wall sign is allowed on each façade, and the sign has to be on the outermost wall of the building. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the signage would have to comply with the size restrictions as well. Mr. Siavelis confirmed that their proposed signage would comply with the Village’s size limitations. Chairperson Oppenheim commended the petitioners for their efforts to relate the proposed new building to the existing architecture of the center with the peak roofs in the center, the incorporation of similar colored bricks, and the trim around the roofline. Chairperson Oppenheim asked the petitioners if it would be possible to incorporate a small parapet wall along the roofline of the glass enclosures to place the signage on, as an alternative to the rooftop signage. There was a discussion among the Commissioners that adding a small parapet wall on top of the glass enclosures could also assist in architecturally unifying the building. Mr. Malk commented that their intent was not to completely blend in with the entire center, but rather to present a fresh and interesting look to attract customers to the center. The building is meant to have an urban look, and the rooftop signage is a part of achieving a more interesting and fun appearance. Mr. Malk assured the Commissioners that all of their tenants are required to display high quality signage. Mr. Malk commented that the market is absolutely Public Hearing Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 6 terrible, and expressed his concern for the center. The new multi-tenant building is designed to architecturally relate to the rest of the property while also adding a fresh, modern urban feel. Mr. Stravrianos explained that one of the design intents was to consciously not have the atrium pieces on the east and west but have the same classical cornice treatment because they are meant to be more delicate elements to give them an organic, authentic look. The signage on top of the atrium piece has a dynamic quality to it, and a lot of the younger demographics look for a more dynamic expression in architecture. Mr. Malk commented that if the signage is displayed against the wall than its going to look like every other shopping center, and their goal is to create interest with the rooftop signage. Mr. Stravrianos commented that in his opinion the public space there is tremendously underutilized, and the addition of the proposed new multi-tenant building would be the start of creating a great gathering space there. The petitioners visualize the public areas as a way to activate the space. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the Village has tried for years to have people be interested in that space, and it’s always been a problem to have it be a gathering space. Mr. Stravrianos commented that the existing Biaggi’s building is a hulking mass, and it doesn’t have any connectivity to the rest of the center or any of the architecture in the downtown area. The whole point of the proposed building was to have a diversity of materials to give it an authenticity as well as to have key elements such as the brick color and slated roof treatments in order to tie it into the rest of the center. Chairperson Oppenheim commended the architect’s ability to create a fresh stylistic and artistic design that also relates to the rest of the center. However, her issue is that putting the signage on the roof is both not necessary, and may also create a precedent that the Village just does not want to create. She would like to see if the signage on the roof could be avoided. Mr. Malk compared this request to the signage that was approved for the new restaurant (Portillos) and noted that they (Portillos) will probably be putting one his tenants out of business. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that Portillos does not have signage on the roof. Mr. Malk noted that that is only place they do not have signage. Commissioner Berg asked if the glass enclosures were separate tenant spaces or a part of the end tenants’ space. Mr. Malk said that the intent is to have the atriums as a part of a larger tenant’s space with an indoor/outdoor eating area. Commissioner Berg suggested making a distinction between rooftop signage on top of the glass enclosure (which is a bump out component of the main structure) versus rooftop signage on top of the main structure. Mr. Stravrianos asked the Commissioners to clarify their specific objection for the rooftop signage. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that the petitioners’ specific vision is to have free standing letters that don’t block site lines. Mr. Stravrianos commented that the idea is to have the opportunity to provide that kind of signage if the tenant demands it. Public Hearing Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Berg voiced his concern that there are typically many spaces that are unusable because of snow piles during a good portion of an average winter, and it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Berg asked if CRM Properties regulates parking restrictions to ensure that commuters aren’t using their lots to park in all day. Mr. Siavelis informed the Commissioners that CRM Properties constantly monitors their parking lots, and have towed on numerous occasions. In regards to snow removal, CRM Properties is open to hearing suggestions, but is confident that their management of snow removal is done in the most efficient and realistic way. The economic hardship of creating specific requirements on snow removal for the property is not realistic. Mr. Malk assured the Commissioners that CRM Properties has tried many different snow removal strategies, including heaters and trucking the snow out from the site; however, it’s not financially viable. Mr. Siavelis commented that they spent fifty thousand dollars last year alone on snow removal, and that’s just enough to get it back to an operational stand point. Commissioner Berg suggested moving the snow to a more remote area on the site. Mr. Siavelis responded that they utilize every possible area on the site. There being no further business to discuss a motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz  APPROVED PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD The Plan Commission of the Village of Deerfield held a Workshop Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on December 8th, 2016 at the Village Hall, 850 Waukegan Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Present were: Mary Oppenheim, Chairperson Bob Benton Larry Berg Elaine Jacoby Stuart Shayman Absent were: Al Bromberg Jim Moyer Also present: Jeff Ryckaert, Principal Planner Dan Nakahara, Associate Planner Public Comment on a Non-Agenda Item No public comment on a non-agenda item (1a) Discussion of 711 Deerfield Road Building Commissioner Shayman commented that the streetscape with the storefront appearance on Deerfield Road and the multiple facades is very architecturally interesting. He personally thinks that the rooftop signage has an interesting and exciting effect on the architecture itself, and that it would be acceptable to go beyond the typical and approve the rooftop signage. Chairperson Oppenheim asked Commissioner Shayman if he was still concerned that the north façade along Deerfield Road looked like storefront entrances, but were not actually accesses to the stores. Commissioner Shayman responded that it would be nice if there were an entrance on both sides of the building, but it may not be practical depending on the interior set up of the tenant spaces. Commissioner Jacoby believed that the Board is most likely not going to approve the rooftop signage, and advised the petitioners to be prepared with an alternative signage plan. Commissioner Shayman inquired about the ordinance regulations on having signage on the inside of the windows. Mr. Ryckaert responded that a window sign would have to follow window signage size regulations which is a maximum 20% of the area of a window for a permanent sign, and 8% for a neon window sign. Workshop Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 2 Commissioner Berg commented that the design is an attractive urban look, and the signage is complementary to the architecture. He suggested that approving the rooftop signage solely for the bump out portion of the building (the glass atriums) may enable the Village to grant relief to the petitioners for their proposed signage without changing the ordinance entirely; therefore, rooftop signage would still not be allowed on top of the main building structure. Commissioner Shayman believed a new ordinance could be written to allow rooftop signage on the structural bump out of the main building structure. Commissioner Berg confirmed that the any amendment to the PUD needs to clearly state that the rooftop signage can only be allowed on the bump out portion of the main building. Chairperson Oppenheim clarified that the Plan Commissions recommendation would only be for the proposed multi-tenant building; however, it would set a precedent for the entire C-1 Village Center District. Chairperson Oppenheim referred to the Portillo’s south wall sign on the bump out of their building, in which the wall sign placed on the bump out needed a variation for its size. The allowable wall sign was calculated based on the area of the bump out portion of the south wall and not the entire south wall of the building. The Village approved the petitioner’s request for a larger wall sign. Commissioner Shayman commented that the issue was not the size, but rather the location of the signage on the roof. Chairperson Oppenheim asked if there was a way to approve the petition without specifying any kind of exception for the signage. She also asked if the Commissioners approve the petition as proposed, and the Board does not agree, where that would leave the petitioners. Commissioner Benton commented that they should keep in mind that the ARC is unanimously opposed to the rooftop signage. Mr. Ryckaert advised the Commissioners that a variation is making an exception for a specific case, which is different than a Text Amendment which would change the signage regulations for the entire C-1 Village Center District. Mr. Ryckaert noted that making a recommendation for a sign variation rather than a Text Amendment is how the Village has done it in the past so that the rooftop signage would have to be approved on a case-by-case situation rather than a text amendment. He said the Commissioners could recommend a very specific Text Amendment to allow rooftop signage on only bump out structures on the end of the building (such as an atrium). He noted the standard for a Text Amendment is it is in the public interest. Either way, the petitioners would have to make their case for a Text Amendment or a variation to the planned unit development. Commissioner Berg commented that he thinks it’s a great opportunity to enhance one quarter of the downtown center. Commissioner Benton agreed. He also added that the Village previously approved blade signs for the Trax and Rapsody Café building because those tenants lacked visibility in this area of the road. Commissioner Jacoby motioned to approve the request of an amendment to a commercial planned unit development to redevelop the 711 Deerfield Road Building with a New Multi-Tenant Building (Deerfield Square) with the sign variations in the building’s proposed sign criteria. Commissioner Benton seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Workshop Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 3 Ayes: (5) Benton, Berg, Jacoby, Shayman, Oppenheim Nays: (0) None The motions passed and will be on the January 3rd Village Board of Trustees Meeting agenda. (2) Prefiling Conference on the Request for a Special Use for a Proposed Accounting Office to be Located at 711 Orchard Street (business owner Robert Gassman and property owner Dr. Al LaPelusa) Michael Collins, petitioner & resident, commented that his family has a small accounting firm currently operating out of a house in Deerfield. His father-in-law started the business fifty years ago, and today himself, his father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister- in-law run the business together. Their business has been growing over the last decade so they’re looking to relocate their office to 711 Orchard Street in downtown Deerfield. The petitioners don’t generate a lot of traffic so their parking needs will be adequately provided with the on-site parking lot so they are requesting a waiver for the traffic and parking study. Commissioner Jacoby asked if the cement planters in the parking lot, to prevent trucks from cutting through that lot, will remain there. Mr. Collins responded that Dr. Al LaPelusa, the owner of the property is better equipped to answer this question and should be present for the public hearing and he will be able to answer any questions about this matter. Commissioner Jacoby asked if the petitioners were concerned about their clients potentially having difficulty maneuvering on the site. Mr. Collins assured the Commissioners that he did not have any issues with the cement blocks. Their business is made up of four employees, and they only have a couple of clients that come in and out a few times a day, so they’re not concerned about traffic or access issues. Chairperson Oppenheim commented that a traffic study shouldn’t be necessary since the business generates such a small amount of traffic. Mr. Collins commented that the tenant space is the perfect space for them to operate their business. Chairperson Oppenheim explained that the petitioners have to request a Special Use to operate their business because the ordinance only allows retail businesses as a Permitted Use on the first floor in the C-1 Village Center District. Chairperson Oppenheim informed the petitioners that the next step in the process is their Public Hearing at which time the Commissioners will make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board votes on approving or rejecting their recommendation and then there would be two readings of the ordinance approving this Special Use. Mr. Nakahara asked the petitioners if they had any signage plans. Mr. Collins responded that their signage will be very minimal and possibly looking at window stenciling. He added that they are an accounting firm that with a majority of their business coming from referrals. Chairperson Oppenheim advised the petitioners to inquire about the window signage regulations, so they’re aware of the size and type of signage that is permitted in the C-1 Village Center District. Workshop Meeting December 8, 2016 Page 4 Respectfully Submitted, Mary Glowacz